new ra review -- syracuse

[jacksonblues]

review of the syracuse show:

http://www.syracusenewtimes.com/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=2490&Itemid=148

gotta say, he does have a few points . . .

[momo_adachi]

He walked out halfway through? Jesus, what a waste. Also he got the title of the Bryan Adams song wrong, and 'Two' wasn't on a solo release either, really. *sigh*

[LucyLost]

That is an ignorant, badly written, biased piece that couldn't be called a review. It kind of a hatchet job. He must be ticked off about
the photographs, or he didn't like his seat. Or maybe he was hungover that day.

[whiskeytown 2]

He walked out halfway through? Jesus, what a waste. Also he got the title of the Bryan Adams song wrong, and 'Two' wasn't on a solo release either, really. *sigh*

i know, i think he is just jealous because he couldn't get pics...this guys a joke

[mpmumau]

I'm the dude who wrote the article. It's cool with me if you disagree with my opinion -- that's what honest reviews are all about. Wouldn't be the first time someone disagrees with me, and I'm sure it won't be the last. I'm a longtime fan of music and a musician myself, and when I review a concert, I calls 'em like I sees 'em.

But just to clarify about the photographer point: I've now arranged for and written reviews over many years, and it's becoming far too common a trend for publicists to pull that waiver trick (often at the last minute, when photographers then are put in a tough ethical position under duress), which is why I finally said to myself "Enough is enough -- time to start calling these people out." I would urge any other established writer to not put up with it any more than I do. Why put ourselves as professional journalists at the mercy of publicists, who are often at best writers who couldn't hack it in the real world?

Photographers from all of the newspapers in town refused then and have refused in the past to sign those waivers for many different concerts. The reason is simple. Professional photographers are artists, too. Their work is to take creative pictures of people and events in the world. Musicians and their liaisons call me EVERY day (and I know they call other editors), asking for my help to promote concerts. Hence, for any of us who do help those publicists when they ask for help (I published a preview of the concert as well), the publicists owe us the right to not treat us like children.

Not having the rights to their own photos means those photographers can never, for example, use those photos as evidence of their work when they try to get another job, among other things. If you create something -- a picture, a song, a painting, etc. -- you own the rights to it, period, and no one can take them away from you. It didn't really matter whether or not we had pictures to run with our story, anyways – in fact I had generic press images I could have used if I'd wanted. The principle of signing over rights is a different matter, however.

Freedom of speech means photographers and writers can report and comment on anything they so choose, guided by an attempt at reason and fairness. The fact that you're able to post on this forum is evidence of everyone's right to free speech, and photographers are included in that.

However that reason and fairness doesn't mean reporting that every musician is great, or pandering to fans. If a musician has a bad day and looks foolish on stage, we have the right to report on it. Heck, you certainly wouldn't want to hear only good news about politicians or other public figures. Same goes for musicians. It's about providing honest commentary and reportage based on your own gut. Being in the position to review something is not an easy job -- you will invariably piss off at least some of the people some of the time. But when our hands get tied behind our backs such that we are only allowed to see what a publicist wants us to see, the whole thing loses its integrity. So if you think I played a little dirty, at least be advised that Ryan Adam's management (and the management of other artists) was equally, if not more so, dirty.

Plus, there's the simple issue as to why thousands of fans with cell phone cameras should be allowed to take pictures, when a handful of highly trained photographers using thousands of dollars of gear should be asked to sign a waiver. Go figure. Maybe the artists want to be portrayed in blurry, crappy shots.

[whiskeytown 2]

well i have to give you credit for coming on here and posting, no hard feelings...and i agree that all news can't be good news and its you job to get it out there...but it just seems that most reviewers give RA a lot of crap for things that happened a long time ago...don't get me wrong, i know he has made an ass out of himself but you can't say that his music is not good...i guess what im trying to say is that if you put aside his mistakes, and i know theres a lot, his music is amazing....hey man, keep posting and let us know about some of your other articles you write..i enjoy reading reviews, good or bad...